While many conspiracy theorists are politically liberal, they also include people on the right, including members of the John Birch Society, who imply that the Sept. 11 attacks were part of a continuing plan by U.S. elites to create a "New World Order" and impose greater control over Americans.

Some conspiracy theories are fantastical (CIA agents orchestrated the attacks; Israel planned them.) -- the epitome of preposterous beliefs that start with a conclusion and work backward to find evidence. Each new month brings a deluge of crackpot theories, but a growing number of people say there are too many improbabilities -- too many illogical holes -- in the government's version of what happened....

"Conspiracists (come) from all parts of the population, they (come) from all racial and religious groups," says Bob Goldberg, a history professor at the University of Utah and the author of "Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America." "The fact that people who have advanced degrees believe in conspiracy theories does not surprise me because it's not an issue of whether you're smart or dumb. In fact, when you look at conspiracy theories, what distinguishes them is how rigorously logical they seem to be, that they are so intensely structured and that there's a belief that every single fact is important and connects to another fact. There's a rigor to (their) logic."

Is anyone surprised by fact that people with advanced degrees believe conspiracy theories? Although plenty of sensible people get advanced degrees, the pursuit of an advanced degree is something that appeals to the kind of person who wants to load a lot of material into his brain and do things with it. Someone like that is more likely to get into conspiracy thinking -- things are connected! -- than the ordinary person who wants to get through with school and get out in the world and do things there. The sizzle and ferment of the inside of the head isn't what most people want. And they're suspicious of academic types with good reason. There are a lot of screwy people in academia.

ADDED: Here's an article about two new government reports refuting the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

I think the trap of conspiracy theories is directly related to personal insecurity. I have some acquaintances who believe in some of these theories and they are also very insecure. For example, in the workplace they tend to interpret every action or statement in a bad light regarding their own employment. They are constantly concerned that their managers or fellow employees are out to get them.

Many of these conspiracy minded people also have no clue about the people who work for the government. They may be so insecure about their own ability that they assume government employees are all geniuses and much smarter than them, when in fact government employees are generally normal people (although often a little too liberal).

The reason why more conspiracy theorists are from the left is because it is a common notion on the left that man is generally "good" except for the elites, who are evil. Therefore those on the left support things like voting without ID, because they assume the evil elites are trying to thwart the good intentions of the comman citizen. Along the same lines, those on the left will excuse "evil behavior" by non elites as being a product of social ills (caused by elites) and not of the individual. In contrast, conservatives generally believe all people are sinners, which is why we need rules and regulations to keep all people honest.

Any conspiracy attracts people from across the political spectrum, but obviously, some conspiracies attract more folks from one side of the spectrum than the other. The fact that this article claims that people who are JBS members believe that 911 was a US government conspiracy is possible. hell anything is possible, I went to the JBS www site and it seems they think 911 was global Islamic terrorism. That external view would be consistent with my understanding of the general JBS world view.

http://www.jbs.org/node/817

I would argue that the vast majority of the 911 was a US plot crazies are on the loony left.

All in all I think the article is too balanced toward the conspiracy guys.

In the afterword to "Debunking 9/11 Myths", an excellent read, a conspiracist named Hoffman is quoted as saying that the debunkers merely address "conspiracy theorists' physical-evidence-based claims without even acknowledging that there are other grounds on which to question the official story." Indeed, the conspiracist states, "many 9/11 researchers don't even address the physical evidence, preferring instead to focus on who had the means, motive and opportunity to carry out the attack."

The afterword's author's analysis is: "This is a stunning burst of honesty: Since we've already decided who's to blame, Hoffman is saying, evidence is optional."

A few pages later, the author comments on the fact that 9/11 conspiracists tend to be found on both the far left and far right. "In truth, the worldviews of far-left- and far-right-wing conspiracists differ little."

Indeed. Only the rhetoric changes, not the mindset... nor the consequences of their obsessions.

The whole conspiracy-theorist mentality reminds me of a phrase that Terry Pratchett has used several times. Paraphrased, he says that these people have built a structure of madness from parts of icy, rational logic.

Yes, but I am still appalled by all this; academics still "sell themselves" to the general public on a honed sense of intellectual/cultural/moral superiority, however undeserved. If it ever dawns on people that what we're dealing with is just a pack o' squirrels with some obcessionaly gifts, the backlash will be hard.

I have been in parties here in Ann Arbor where I have left in disgust at the bile and bizarre notions disgorged by highly educated people whom I still foolishly believe should "know better." I have come to feel that in many academic cirles what matters more than knowledge is simply being "the voice that controls the room," which is quite a different thing. The curse of credentialism!

I have some acquaintances who believe in some of these theories and they are also very insecure. For example, in the workplace they tend to interpret every action or statement in a bad light regarding their own employment. They are constantly concerned that their managers or fellow employees are out to get them.

In my experience these people are always right. They are, after all, impossible to work with or supervise.

I'm not kissing up, just want to say that I believe that you have described that type of person more succinctly than anyone before.

Is anyone surprised by fact that people with advanced degrees believe conspiracy theories? Although plenty of sensible people get advanced degrees, the pursuit of an advanced degree is something that appeals to the kind of person who wants to load a lot of material into his brain and do things with it. Someone like that is more likely to get into conspiracy thinking -- things are connected! -- than the ordinary person who wants to get through with school and get out in the world and do things there.

It doesn't surprise me that many conspiracy theorists are well-educated and intelligent, which are different qualities than being well-balanced.

Many who earn advanced degrees want to understand some aspect of how the world operates and are persistent enough to learn arcane material. In many academic fields, the graduate student becomes more and more aware of the gaps in our knowledge--e.g., the absence of a unified field theory in physics. In contrast, conspiracy theories satisfy the urge to understand how the world world works and usually have every detail nailed down. They're better than science, which says everything we think we know is provisional because it may be disproved.

Conspiracy theorists remind me of medieval astronomers with their spheres rotating within spheres, all to explain retrograde planetary motion in a system where the sun and the planets revolved around the earth, the center of the universe. Come to think of it, I once met someone who argued that the earth is flat and that the Illuminati had conspired since the 15th century to bamboozle us into thinking otherwise. But this guy knew. He had the true knowledge. And I didn't.

So maybe the appeal of conspiracy theories to intelligent people is that these theories "explain" how the world works but only a few can know the truth.

The reason why more conspiracy theorists are from the left is because it is a common notion on the left that man is generally "good" except for the elites, who are evil

Oh come on, I don't know that anyone has anyone has done a survey, but there are just as many, and as complex, conspiracy theories on the right, as on the left. Go back and read the Plame thread from yesterday. Some of you are willing to paint Fitzgerald as some kind of agent of the Democrats.

And how about the international communist conspiracy, France, the U.N conspiracy, Kyoto as a clever plot to destroy the U.S. economy, fluoridation of our water. Hell, I remember in High School that some people actually thought that introducing international road signs was a communist plot so the Russians would have an easier time getting around when they invaded.

My understanding is that intelligent, educated people are also often attracted to cults.

It is very dangerous to equate intelligence with education. One can be highly educated and not very intelligent.

when in fact government employees are generally normal people (although often a little too liberal).

Do you the least shred of evidence that government employees are "often a little too liberal". Give me a freaking break. By far, the largest employer in the federal government is the department of defense, both military and civilian. And I doubt that the politics of say a mid-level computer programmer or accountant who works for the IRS in Kansas City differs one bit from one who works for H & R Block.

Call me nuts, but I think it's genetic. There are people who believe every conspiracy theory that comes down the line, and there are people who believe exactly none, and very few others. Personally, I was born without the conspiracy gene. I believe the JFK, Monroe, King, Foster and 9/11 conspiracies are all equally irrational.

Therefore those on the left support things like voting without ID, because they assume the evil elites are trying to thwart the good intentions of the comman citizen.

This would be a valid criticism, if not in the not-too-distant past in this country, it was true. Furthermore, in Georgia, where this law was passed (and one of the states where voter suppression was most prevalent and brutal in the past) the Secretary of State's report actually came to a conclusion opposite of what the effect of the law will be. The Secretary of State noted that voting without ID was not a source of voter fraud but absentee balloting was a potentially serious threat. Yet the law to require picture IDs (which would make it difficult for some rural, especially elderly african american voters to vote, as they do not have birth certificates) actually loosened the requirements for absentee balloting, increasing the potential for fraud in that, more fraud-prone venue, while cracking down on a non-existent problem.

So while it may not be a conspiracy, it is certainly valid to be skeptical of the intentions of the Republicans pushing that law in Georgia.

Sloanasaurus:The reason why more conspiracy theorists are from the left is because it is a common notion on the left that man is generally "good" except for the elites, who are evil. Therefore those on the left support things like voting without ID, because they assume the evil elites are trying to thwart the good intentions of the comman citizen. Along the same lines, those on the left will excuse "evil behavior" by non elites as being a product of social ills (caused by elites) and not of the individual. In contrast, conservatives generally believe all people are sinners, which is why we need rules and regulations to keep all people honest.

Wait, I thought that "elites" were supposed to be liberals - for a time, it seemed that I'd wouldn't hear the "e" word unless it was preceeded by the "l" word (well not that "l" word, but anyway...). Furthermore, I thought conservatives were AGAINST regulations - rules & regs were things that liberals wanted to "protect" people from "predatory capitalism" or some such thing. Whatever happened to "let's get big government off our backs!"?

I'm not necessarily disputing your larger point, and I don't want to look like I'm just picking on conservatives, but your rhetoric really does read to me like a mirror-universe version of how conservatives talked about liberals 15-20 years ago.

Freder, completely different country, but let me tell you as a tax lawyer who works closely with a lot of accountants, there is a HUGE difference in mindset between the IRS (at least my country's version) and private practice.

In short, it breaks pretty evenly the way you'd expect - those who collect it tend to be socialist in nature, those who advise taxpayers, not so much.

I have some acquaintances who believe in some of these theories and they are also very insecure. For example, in the workplace they tend to interpret every action or statement in a bad light regarding their own employment.

"There are a lot of screwy people in academia." Gee, ya think? (Disclaimer: I'm in academia, and I'm probably considered by most as at least a little screwy.)

I once asked a colleague, who believes that Bush at least LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) and that "something is fishy" about the Towers falling because "it looks just like a controlled demolition" if he had ever *seen* an uncontrolled demolition? And what would it look like? Would a 100 story building topple over like a mighty oak?

He just stared at me with the look you would get from a dead carp. Look, if you already believe your political opponents are not just wrong but evil, it's a very short step to very convoluted conspiracies. And, as a political scientist, he should be at least marginally aware of the, literally, thousands of participants such a conspiracy would necessarily involve.

Both the far right (Birchers and others that I forget just now) and the far left (way more folks than I am comfortable with) believe their opponents are *actively* evil. The difference is that the far left used to believe that their allies were in charge. The Birchers, OTOH, never believed they had any real allies with any real power. They were used to being total outsiders.

Now, with Republicans winning since 1994 and 2000, the Lefty nuts have gone crazier than the Birchers. It will be interesting to see if, for example, pop culture eventually figures out just hoe screwy the lefty conspiracists are. After all, the Birchers and assorted Rightwing 'black helicopter' type conspiracists were objects of derision in pop culture for years.

Richard Hofstadter's great article, The Paranoid Style in American Politics is about the right. Now, it's flipped. Part of it is simply that the ins tell the official story (by definition) so the outs are left with the unofficial story. But conspiratorial paranoia is not quite that simple.

I think that we're dealing with the democratic analogue of the King's evil minister. That was the recurring theory that, as the King was divinely chosen, he could not be wrong. Thus, anything going wrong must be the result of a perversion of the King's true intent by his evil ministers. Part of the deal in becoming a minister to the King was that, if things went wrong, you might be hanged so that the King wasn't.

If, in a democracy, the sovereign is the people, and the people can't be wrong, what do you do if the people make decisions with which you disagree; decisions that seem evil to you. Obviously, the people were mislead by their evil ministers. Then you just need to go find the evidence.

Though I agree that this particular illness (911 as BDS) is heavily weighted to the left of the spectrum, I find it hard to believe that would happen in CT. You could see the towers burning from half the state. Everybody must know somebody that worked in the towers. I can't believe that many if any of those people believe that the airplanes were bogus or that thousands of pounds of demo was snuck into the walls of their offices.

Freder, I don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but I think it is pretty well known that many government workers are liberal. They are often in public service unions which are heavy contributors to democrats.

If your job is dependent upon big government and a healthy flow of tax dollars to ensure your job or future pay raises, it is only natural that you would tend to lean to the left. Also, I believe minorities are more heavily represented in the public sector, vs the private sector, and many minority groups are overwhelmingly liberal.

"Here's an article about two new government reports refuting the 9/11 conspiracy theory."

Of course, no number of government reports, however airtight and compelling, will change the minds of the conspiracy theorists.

I agree that conspiracy theorists tend to see an Evil Other in everything that is wrong with the world, and this explains much of their attitude and behavior.

Some religions encourage this. I suspect these religions are heavily populated with conspiracy theorists. Others religions do not, defusing the Evil Other by pointedly omitting the Other and adopting an introspective attitude towards Evil.

but I think it is pretty well known that many government workers are liberal.

Well, that settles it then. I retract my statement. If you "think it is pretty well known" it must be true. Plus if a bunch of minorities work for the government, that seals the deal (after all they couldn't get a job in the real world, could they--they're much too lazy and shiftless.)

You did conveniently forget that everyone in the military works for the government, though. As for unions, most of the employees of GM and many other large coroporations are in unions.

I was an attorney for the freaking EPA. Yes, that agency full of tree-huggers where we all showed up in tie-dye tee-shirts, ripped bell-bottom jeans and birkenstocks. (And this was in 1992.) Anyway, one of my fellow attorneys told me I was the most liberal person she had ever met. I laughed at her and told her she needed to get out more. But then again, this was Atlanta.

Ann:You said re the conspiracy types:Someone like that [people with advanced degrees] is more likely to get into conspiracy thinking -- things are connected! -- than the ordinary person

But they don't embrace conspiracy theories when it comes to America's enemies.

These same conspiratorialists, I would wager, would dismiss with a wave of the hand the idea that Saddam would work with Osama bin Laden. When it comes to conspiracies against the country, their scepticism has no limits.

For some reason, the belief in conspiracies seems to stop at the nation's shores.

Actually, the Republicans are way more prone to conspiracy theories than Democrats.

Yes - you have some loonies arguing that 9/11 was Israel's fault, etc., but no mainstream politicians are arguign this theory.

Compare that to the Clinton years - when the Wall Street Journal Editorial page was writing every other day for 8 years that Bill Clinton was involved with the drug trade in Mesa Arkansas, murdered Vince Foster, etc.

"You did conveniently forget that everyone in the military works for the government, though. As for unions, most of the employees of GM and many other large coroporations are in unions"

I hate to burst your fantasy bubble here FF, but as a union member and veteran I can tell you from personal observation that a huge percentage of DOD employees definitely qualify as "liberal", as that term is used in American politics - and that includes soldiers, who as a group are considerably more socially liberal than our society is in general. Also, as a member of a union with agency shop at my company, I can tell you that I have run across fewer than ten people who admit (yes, I said admit) to having voted for John Kerry in the last presidential election. You need to update your stereotypes.

Fred -- I worked as an American diplomat and I can report confidently that 80 percent of American Foreign Service personnel are Democrats. Maybe more. The same goes for other employees at the State Department. I believe that the average American would be surprised at the very high number of Democrats in "other agencies" as well.

One woman earnestly told me that she believed that President Bush will run for a third term.

You don't need a study to know if it's raining outside. If you say you need evidence of commonly accepted facts, it doesn't makeyou look demanding. It makes you look like you are more interested in winning debate points than winning the substantive debate itself.

"...what distinguishes them is how rigorously logical they seem to be, that they are so intensely structured and that there's a belief that every single fact is important and connects to another fact. There's a rigor to (their) logic."

That's correct, and therein lies the reason why some believe conspiracy fantasies: The internal consistency of the narrative they construct proves the truth of the worldview to the fantasists. And proves it regardless of whether that narrative actually reflects reality or not. What stops other folks from accepting said fantasies is that they realize reality often does great damage to theoretical systems regardless of any internal consistency they may possess; anyone here remember from physics class the 19th century belief in the ether?

"Is anyone surprised by fact that people with advanced degrees believe conspiracy theories?"

As one currently working at a university, I'm forced to say: No, not in the least. Specialization in one field of knowledge doesn't have to atrophy other areas of intellect such as common sense, but it seems to happen to an alarming number of folks with advanced degrees. There's a certain naiveity - or maybe even gullability - regarding the messy illogic of the real world vs. the ideal of how they feel said real world should work. And dissonance between what is and how things should be is often not taken as merely being the natural variance of human behavior, but being purposeful choices consciously done in order to directly affect a target "victim". Now, this behavior is not universal among academics, nor is it characteristic of even the majority, but it *is* a distressingly large minority who hold such worldviews.

Guys, I hate to burst in on this part of the thread here, but I really want to say this: It doesn't matter whether tendencies towards conspiracy fantasies are more pronounced with folks on one side of the political spectrum or another. The key characteristics to properly analyzing the reality of such topics are critical thinking, logic, and the ability to allow analysis to go where the facts dictate, not where personal preferences do. Regarding 9/11 fanaties: It doesn't matter whether most believers are liberals or conservatives, the key problem with those folks is their lack of critical thinking, abuses of logic (that's not a contradiction to the Goldberg pullquote from the story; the logical rigor exists in the fantasie, but it's a fallacious, just like syllogims are), and odd selective suspensions of disbelief and common sense. Critical thinking, proper logic, and intelligent, intellectually honest analysis of facts within topics should be a characteristic of either side of the spectrum. And I say this as one who considers himself as a conservative in the mold of Regan and Thatcher.

So in short, can we drop the tired, chiche'd Left-Right thing? The problem with conspiracy fantasists is not how they vote, it's their lack of intellectual rigor.

Well, that settles it then. I retract my statement. If you "think it is pretty well known" it must be true. Plus if a bunch of minorities work for the government, that seals the deal (after all they couldn't get a job in the real world, could they--they're much too lazy and shiftless.)

Don't project your view of minorites or government workers onto me. Plus, your little barb is a cute way of deflecting my point. Instead of taking it on, you accuse me of being a racist. Always a nice move when you are losing an arguement. And you haven't come up with anything other than your opinion in this debate either, so how about being less of a dick.

You did conveniently forget that everyone in the military works for the government, though. As for unions, most of the employees of GM and many other large coroporations are in unions.

You conveniently forget that the majority of teachers work for the government and there are more NEA members than there are members of the military. The NEA likes to brag that they are the largest block of delegates to the Demcoratic national convention. Also, I live outside of Detroit, so I am aware of union workers, they definitely lean democratic. Or are you going to make another incredible statement and say that unions trend republican?

by the way, here are the numbers, which should end this foolishness.

http://www.atr.org/press/editorials/tas/tas0599.html

Over the past ten elections, union members have voted 63 to 37 percent Democrat over Republican. Non-union workers voted 55.5% Republican and 45.5%

Luckily, the pollster Scott Rassmussen, (one of the founders of the ESPN sports channel) does look at this variable and finds that government employment swings one’s party identification ten percent towards the Democrats.

Ah it was predictable. Saw it coming as soon as I came across the John Birch Society reference [and wondered "are they still alive?"]

This happens everytime the Left has a Fitzmas busted up. Rather than express shame or embarassment, they devolve into the other guys are worse mantras. Then a 3rd party chimes in with the inevitable both sides are just as bad. And they all go off pretending that 9-11 conspiracy theorists are evidence of a bipartisan madness.

Watch for the pattern - you'll see it again - because they keep making the same excuses for the same mistakes over and over again. No shame, no remorese. So they go out an do it again.

uh-huh. I forget if it was Pelosi or Kennedy who claimed we had OBL on ice and were saving it for the next election cycle.

I think the classic Democratic conspiracy pandering spokesman was Howard Dean. I think it was back in 2003, when on NPR he tossed a grenade out :

Diane Rehm: "Why do you think he [Bush] is suppressing that [Sept. 11] report?"

Howard Dean: "I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?"

Now see, having an open and honest discussion about 9/11 conspiracy theories... IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF THING THE GOVERNMENT WOULD PERMIT IN ORDER TO COVER UP WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON 9/11! THEY WOULD ENCOURAGE DEBATE!

And governnment efforts to "debunk" 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying "no" conspiracy ever "happened" - IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT A MASSIVE GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY WOULD DO TO COVER UP ITS CRIMES! AND POPULAR MECHANICS IS A TOOL OF THE ELITE!

It's completely internally consistent. Therefore, I've just proven the existence of a massive government conspiracy to fight Halliburton's war for Blood for Oil against the peace loving peoples of the world. It's all about the Rockefeller*-controlled oil companies covering up the existence of the 100 MPG carburetor, as everybody knows.

For my next trick, I will conclusively proving that the black helicopter militia movement and Tim McVeigh have now switched places with the 9/11 deniers.

*The bad Rockefellers, not the good ones like Sen. "Leakin' Jay" Rockefeller.